They say, "Just when you think you've created an idiot-proof system, someone invents a better idiot."

Any imaginable artifact that might serve as definitive proof of the Niku hypothesis may be doubted as something planted by TIGHAR, by the Japenese, by the American government, or by some other nefarious organization (the Illuminati or the Knights Templar, perhaps).

To accept a piece of the airframe, a personal item, or a scrap of DNA as definitive proof that NR16020 landed at Niku, people will have to believe that it got there as the result of the flight on 2 July 1937 and not by some other means, fair or foul.

Archaeological artifacts do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted in order for them to have a bearing on an argument about a historic event. Finding and dating artifacts employs various and sundry scientific or quasi-scientific methods, but interpreting them is an art, not a science. The holy grail would be the data plate from NR16020, or some equally specific piece of metal that could be definitively associated with the Electra. But such a piece of metal cannot tell us how it got to where it was found. The story of the finding will be told by human beings. Their testimony about what they found and where they found such an artifact depends upon their honesty and integrity, neither of which can be tested by laboratory (empirical) techniques. Even if they are judged to be honest, someone else may have planted the real artifact or a counterfeit, precisely to throw them off the track of the "real" story (insert various conspiracy theories here).

Such is life with humans. Can't live with 'em; can't live without 'em.

So how does a person make peace with this problem, and with Mr. Werner Heisenberg (sp?) as well. Can we vote on it?

I often apply White's Law (copyright 2005 Leon R. White):1 People do what they want to do a) people say what they want to say b) people hear what they want to hear c) people think what they want to think d) socrates is not a person.

-LeonReason is like a mallet. If you hit yourself in the head long enough with it, you wear out the mallet.

Even IF the smoking gun is found then there is a good chance that many critics will not accept it as proof that the Niku hypothesis is correct. If Nessie is found, for instance, then some could claim that it was a fake that TIGHAR planted. Or maybe it floated there on the current? If DNA evidence is found some will claim that it was planted, faked or both. There are ALWAYS going to be people who will argue anything, no matter how absurd, to try and prove that they were correct. I might only be 25, but I've learned that lesson several times in life already. My tactic is to ignore those people and let them believe whatever they want.

TIGHAR needs to stick to their guns and follow the scientific method to prove this hypothesis correct ... or not. I think the evidence strongly points to the Niku hypothesis being correct, but maybe it's not. Maybe she did crash and float, or crash on McKean or New Britain or someplace else. All that TIGHAR can do is continue following the scientific method and continue the excellent work they are doing. That won't satisfy the media or many critics, but it's the only way of solving this mystery!

Falsification of hypotheses is the basis of the scientific method. You can never "prove" an hypothesis is true; you can only demonstrate that it is not true, i.e. not consistent with observation. The best you can hope for is that all tests of an hypothesis yield results consistent with that hypothesis. That's just the way it works.

Test an hypothesis in enough different ways without disproving it, and eventually most doubters will come around and admit it's likely. TIGHAR reached that point a long time ago, in my opinion.

That's one theory about the scientific method. It was proposed by a man named Popper. It is a philosophical conviction, not a scientific finding. The hypothesis that "Falsification of hypotheses is the basis of the scientific method" can neither be verified nor falsified by "the" scientific method.

Quote

You can never "prove" an hypothesis is true ...

Mathematicians do it all the time.

If your hypothesis ("You can never 'prove' an hypothesis is true") is true, then you can never prove it to be true; that makes it merely a matter of opinion--or faith.

I would offer one available counter-example from a multitude that might be chosen: Milliken's oil drop experiment confirmed the hypothesis that there are identical unit charges in the flow of electricity.

I don't quite understand the argument here. If the Niku Hypothesis proves to be true by virtue of finding NR16020 somewhere down below the reef, it is no longer a Hypothesis, it is a fact. Therefore the Hypothesis is proven to be true.

I don't quite understand the argument here. If the Niku Hypothesis proves to be true by virtue of finding NR16020 somewhere down below the reef, it is no longer a Hypothesis, it is a fact. Therefore the Hypothesis is proven to be true.

No.

It only shows that pieces of NR16020 are down below the reef. It won't show how they got there.

They could come from the Japanese after AE died of dysentery, trying to cover up their error.

They could come from the Japanese, trying to throw the U.S. off the scent of the True Whereaboutsof Amelia Earhart (Tokyo or N.J.).

They could come from the U.S., trying to persuade the Japanese that they hadn't been spied on and had their war plans compromised.

They could come from TIGHAR, which secretly removed them from their true location in New Britain and planted them underwater so that the Niku expeditions could continue.

I'm sure I could go on, but my imagination is growing weary from all this archaeological reasoning.

I don't quite understand the argument here. If the Niku Hypothesis proves to be true by virtue of finding NR16020 somewhere down below the reef, it is no longer a Hypothesis, it is a fact. Therefore the Hypothesis is proven to be true.

No.

It only shows that pieces of NR16020 are down below the reef. It won't show how they got there.

They could come from the Japanese after AE died of dysentery, trying to cover up their error.

They could come from the Japanese, trying to throw the U.S. off the scent of the True Whereaboutsof Amelia Earhart (Tokyo or N.J.).

They could come from the U.S., trying to persuade the Japanese that they hadn't been spied on and had their war plans compromised.

They could come from TIGHAR, which secretly removed them from their true location in New Britain and planted them underwater so that the Niku expeditions could continue.

I'm sure I could go on, but my imagination is growing weary from all this archaeological reasoning.

Geez Louise, I think I just got debunked by the machinations of the Right Reverend Martin X Moleski SJ. Flecto superiori tuo intellectus

"Scientific knowledge is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be considered completely certain, since new evidence falsifying it might be discovered. [my emphasis] If such evidence is found, a new theory may be proposed, or (more commonly) it is found that minor modifications to the previous theory are sufficient to explain the new evidence. The strength of a theory is related to how long it has persisted without falsification of its core principles."

As I said before, I think the Niku hypothesis is already well supported by the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence.

I would offer one available counter-example from a multitude that might be chosen: Milliken's oil drop experiment confirmed the hypothesis that there are identical unit charges in the flow of electricity.

Oh, Marty. I ought to know better than to disagree with you, but...fools rush in, right?

I think what mathematicians do "all the time" is demonstrate that "theorems" (not scientific hypotheses) follow logically from accepted axioms and/or other theorems derived from such axioms. There are no empirical observations here; merely an agreed-on starting point and some rules of logic to follow. Very different from scientific inquiry.

And while Milliken's very elegant experiment has been repeated so many times as to persuade almost everybody that yes, electrical charge probably is quantized and the quantum measurable, all that it actually does is provide strong experimental evidence consistent with that hypothesis, not an absolute "proof."

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.